News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:AI Detectors Falsely Accuse Students of Cheating–With Big... by skhunted on Monday October 21, 2024 @04:22PM (#41908161)
You don't, IMO, directly care how they produced the answer, you care about it only as a proxy for them learning the material well enough to solve the problem.

I don’t care about the answer. I care about the thought process that went into finding the answer. The answer is irrelevant.

And making people do them in person with no technology is unrealistic - not because it can't be done, but because at that point, it's not a reflection of how you'd use it outside of that classroom, and people are going to call it pointless, and IMO they'd be right.

There’s body of knowledge a person trained in a given area ought to know without use of computers or notes. There are things a person who calls themself “an engineer” or “a physicist” ought to know off the top of their head. A person going into mechanical engineering ought to have some familiarity with how to integrate without using a computer. Such is my belief.

Re:AI Detectors Falsely Accuse Students of Cheating–With Big... by rincebrain on Tuesday October 22, 2024 @11:03AM (#41914991)
I absolutely agree there's a minimum baseline you need, but my argument is more that I feel like, from my experiences in academia, a lot of it, particularly in intro courses, is often focused around verbatim memorization as a proxy for knowing how to use the rote memorized thing, and while I've always been quite good at rote memorization, other people often are not, and get filtered by those classes.

e.g. I saw several intro CS courses filter people who couldn't write Java or C code cold with precisely correct syntax, and baseline physics classes filter people who couldn't keep a bunch of identities memorized well, when I claim that neither of those is directly useful as a skill in most circumstances, or necessary in the problem domain.